Internship Project: Survey on Wildlife Rehabilitation
Paige Hezel
Stockton University
7 May 2021
Introduction
The International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council (IWRC) defines wildlife rehabilitation
as the treatment and temporary care of injured, diseased, and displaced animals as well as the
subsequent release of healthy animals to appropriate habitats in the wild (Mullineaux, 2014).
Wildlife rehabilitation occurs across the world, but each country handles it differently. Some
countries have some form of regulatory framework for wildlife rehabilitation, such as licenses
and training, while others do not or have loose, informal regulations (Mullineaux, 2014). This
can be an issue when working with possibly diseased animals or working with endangered/at-
risk species. Rehabilitation can also be dangerous because facilities become incubators for
diseases that can be transmitted to people or domestic animals, making them most suitable for
short-term care (Mullineaux, 2014). Releasing animals is a component of wildlife rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation centers need to release animals they are sure can re-integrate into the wild (not get
attached to humans), will not pass diseases to existing populations, and able to reproduce
successfully (Mullineaux, 2014). To track the success of releases, care facilities will mark (tags,
dyes, tattoos, trackers, etc.) and track their animals (Mullineaux, 2014). Assisting the public and
providing information is another aspect of wildlife rehabilitation. The public will often call care
facilities for help with nuisance animals who have caused damage (Siemer et al., 1991).
Sometimes, rehabilitated animals can become causes of nuisance and damage problems (Siemer
et al., 1991). A survey involving wildlife rehabilitators in New York found that most
rehabilitators want to help the public, whether that is through caring for animals or answering
wildlife-related questions (Siemer et al., 1991). Through wildlife rehabilitation, advancements
can be made in the conservation of certain at-risk species, monitoring of wildlife diseases, and
public awareness of environmental and conservation issues (Mullineaux, 2014). However, not
everyone has the same perception of wildlife and wildlife rehabilitation.
To understand opinions on wildlife and formulate strategies to best control wildlife,
farmers and non-farmers must be considered. A 1992 survey in Utah and Wyoming provided
results of farmers reporting more severe damage by wildlife than non-farmers (McIvor and
Conover, 1994). When asked about control techniques, non-farmers gravitated towards non-
lethal methods, whereas farmers responded chose whichever works best, but for more lethal
methods when dealing with coyotes (McIvor and Conover, 1994). Both groups stated deer were
the greatest cause of wildlife damage, and non-farmers stated coyotes were the second greatest
source of issues (McIvor and Conover, 1994). This supports the trend of increasing deer and
human interactions due to an upward increase in deer population (McIvor and Conover, 1994). It
also illustrates the impact of media on the public's perceptions of wildlife since non-farmers
consider coyotes as a threat while farmers ranked them fifth (McIvor and Conover, 1994). Not
only is there a difference in how people perceive wildlife, but there is also a difference in
opinions on the purpose and effectiveness of rehabilitation facilities. There is some debate
behind the ethics and morals of wildlife rehabilitation. Euthanasia, ecological effects of
rehabilitated animals on existing populations, funds from habitat conservation, and possible
health risks to those working with these animals are a few of the highly debated topics
(Mullineaux, 2014). Generally, research shows that wildlife rehabilitation can be positively
impactful for wildlife management and educating the public.
In New Jersey, it is illegal to possess wildlife without a permit. Any injured, orphaned, or
sick wildlife cannot be cared for by any individual who does not have a valid New Jersey
rehabilitation permit. According to the New Jersey Association of Wildlife Rehabilitators
(NJAWR), in 2020, there are 19 permitted wildlife rehabilitators throughout New Jersey
(NJAWR, n.d.). While these facilities are all permitted and recognized, they do not accept all
species. Rehabilitation centers have to deal with limited facilities, trained staff, and funding
(Mullineaux, 2014), all of which can limit the range of species and numbers of individuals the
organization can handle. Some organizations are specialized for one species. For example, in
Sussex County, the Avian Wildlife Center only handles birds, and in Hunterdon County, the NJ
Bat Sanctuary only works with bats (NJAWR, n.d.). Most rehabilitation facilities collaborate
with veterinarians and other wildlife rehab centers to create a more successful rehabilitation
process.
Woodlands Wildlife Refuge is a licensed wildlife rehabilitation facility and nonprofit
corporation in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, that cares for orphaned and injured native
wildlife and releases them back to their natural habitat. Woodlands Wildlife Refuge accepts
mammals and reptiles/amphibians. Some species include raccoons, skunks, opossums, rabbits,
turtles, woodchucks, foxes, squirrels, coyotes, otters, bears, snakes, and bobcats (NJAWR, n.d.).
If the refuge receives birds or bats, they may house for a short time and then give them to a
facility with the resources to properly care for them. They also provide educational programs
about local wildlife and their habitats. Woodlands was founded in 1986 by Tracy Leaver and
began with the care of two orphaned raccoons. Woodlands now cares for over 1,000 animals
annually.
After interning at Woodlands for 12-weeks, I gained knowledge on New Jersey species—
habitats, behaviors, diets, etc.—that I previously did not have. As an intern, I have also interacted
with many people who have dropped animals off at the refuge. Some people accidentally run
over rabbits with their lawnmowers, find raccoons acting unusual in their yard, have barn cats
attack squirrels, or encounter orphaned animals. Some people bring animals to the refuge as soon
as possible or call animal control, but some people care for these animals for weeks and become
attached. As someone who has not interacted with many wild animals until this internship and
interacted with the public, I was curious about people's opinions on wildlife and their knowledge
on wildlife rehabilitation. Since my knowledge of wildlife and wildlife rehabilitation was
lacking, even though I live in an area that is both suburban and rural, I wanted to determine the
knowledge of my peers, families, and others through a survey. I expected responders near my
location to be slightly knowledgeable on wildlife, possibly find them as nuisances, and have little
to no information on rehabilitation centers. These same responders will have most likely
interacted with or have seen a wild animal or injured/orphaned wild animal. Also, I expected
responders to have little information on rabies and rabies vector species (species that can carry
the virus).
Methods
The survey was 12 questions with varying formats. Questions could have been multiple
choice, checkboxes, or short answers. The first few questions were to get an understanding of
how often the responders interacted with wild animals. An example of one of these questions:
Have you ever handled a wild animal? The next two questions were about rabies. Since the
public may be handling these wild animals, it is important to see if they understand the risks and
diseases they carry. One such question was: How would you rate your knowledge of rabies
(symptoms, transmission, treatment?) Then, were a few questions revolving around rehabilitation
centers—would responders bring wildlife to these facilities, do they know about such
organizations, and what the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation is. Lastly, to better understand the
background of my responders, there were questions on birth year, male/female/prefer not to say,
and zip code. These last three questions were important to include because they could explain
why responders answered in a particular way.
This survey was created through Google Forms and shared on Facebook and Instagram—
popular social media sites. These media platforms are ones that I frequent and ones that I know
my peers and relatives utilize. This project was a human dimension survey because it is relatively
easy to create and share. Unfortunately, at the time that this survey was created, COVID-19 had
forced everyone to quarantine. 20 responses were obtained within the first few days the survey
was posted, but it took almost a week and a half to achieve ten more responses. There were 30
responses in total, and responders were only allowed one response. All responses were
anonymous. Through the Google Forms application, the responses were synthesized into bar
graphs and pie charts depending on the question.
Results
Graph 1
# of Responders
Statements
Graph 1: This bar graph shows the answers to the first question of the survey. Responders were asked how strongly
they agree or disagree with three statements: 1) All wildlife are nuisances, 2) Wildlife can cause problems, but I
enjoy them, 3) Wildlife does not create problems, and I enjoy seeing them. Besides one neutral response and one
responder that did not answer the question, all participants disagreed with the statement that wildlife are nuisances.
Graph 2
Species
# of Responders
Graph 2: Graph 2 illustrates the responses to question five of the survey. Responders were asked to pick the species
they believe could carry rabies. This was a checkbox-type question so responders could choose up to all eight
choices. All responders chose raccoons as a rabies vector species.
Graph 3
Statements
# of Responders
Graph 3: Graph three includes the answers to question nine, which was in the format of a checkbox question.
Participants were asked to pick the statement or statements that best described the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation.
Zero responders chose "to turn wild animals into pets." Only ten responders chose "educate the public."
Table 1
Ye
ar # of
Bor Respond
n ers
195
9 2
196
3 2
196
4 1
196
9 2
197
0 3
197
1 1
197
3 1
197
8 1
198
3 1
199
4 1
199
6 3
199
7 2
199
8 3
199
9 3
200
0 2
200
2 1
Table 1: Table 1 shows the birth years of the participants. Most responders were born between 1959 and 1970 as
well as 1996 and 2000. 1970, 1996, 1998, and 1999 had three responders for each year. There was one responder
born in 2002. All responders had to be at least 18 years old.
Graph 4
# of Responders
Zip Codes
Graph 4: Graph 4 provides the results of the last question of the survey. Instead of asking for the town, county, and
state that the responders lived in, they were just asked to provide their zip code. Seven participants had the zip code
08865, and four had the zip code 08804.
This survey had 30 participants. One participant did not specify male/female/prefer not to
say, one participant only responded to one of three statements in question one, and one did not
mention the year they were born. Otherwise, all participants answered all 12 questions. Question
one, seen in Graph 1, was used to understand the responder's perceptions of wildlife. None of the
participants agreed that wildlife are nuisances, but there was one neutral response. Most
responders (17) agreed that wildlife can cause problems, but they still enjoy them. Three
responders were neutral to this statement. Fourteen responders agreed/strongly agreed that
wildlife creates no problems, and they enjoy seeing wildlife. Nine were neutral, and seven
disagreed with the statement. Question two asked if the responders have ever handled a wild
animal. This response was relatively even with 17 responders saying “no” and 13 saying “yes.”
Question three asked if responders had ever encountered an orphaned or injured wild animal, in
which 22 participants answered "yes." When asked to rate their knowledge of rabies (symptoms,
transmission, treatment), 60% of responders said they had "a little" and 30% answered "some."
Two participants said they had a lot of knowledge, and one answered none.
Then, participants were asked to choose the species they believe could carry rabies, seen
in Graph 2. The question provided eight choices--raccoons, coyotes, foxes, skunks, groundhogs,
bats, opossums, and squirrels. Participants could choose all eight species or a select few. All 30
responders chose raccoons as a rabies vector species. Foxes were the second most chosen species
(25), followed by skunks and bats (21). 17 responders chose squirrels as a rabies vector species.
Question six asked what participants would do if they encountered an injured or orphaned
animal. 50% of responders said they would call Animal Control. 11 responders said they would
safely secure it and take it to a rehabilitation center, three said they would do nothing and let
nature take its course, and one chose "other." For question seven, 70% of participants strongly
agreed with rehabilitating orphaned and injured animals. No responders disagreed, but two were
neutral. Seventeen responders answered "no" when asked if they knew of any local wildlife
rehabilitation centers. Question nine asked responders to choose, from four statements, the
statement that best described the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation, seen in Graph 3. Most
responders chose "provide care to sick, injured, and orphaned wild animals" and "return animals
to their natural habitat." Only 10 participants chose "educate the public," and zero chose "turn
wild animals into pets."
Lastly, responders were asked to answer three questions that would provide information
on the type of people responding to the survey. Table 1 shows the birth years of the participants.
All participants had to be at least 18 years old. 1970, 1996, 1998, and 1999 had the most
participants (three each). One participant was born in 2002, and one participant did not answer.
Twenty participants were female, nine were male, and one did not respond. Graph 4 depicts the
results when participants were asked to provide their zip code. Seven responders had the zip code
08865, and four had 08804. Almost all responders were from New Jersey except for one
responder from Pennsylvania, two from Maryland, and one in Delaware.
Discussion
Most responders were females. This is most likely due to the way the survey was sent out
—via social media (Facebook and Instagram). The number of female responders is also due to
who I associate with. I associate with more females, whether they are friends or family. These
females are on social media more and are willing to help me (as in answer to my survey) in any
way. Males tend to use social media less, and the males I associate with are often family
members. In the 1992 survey in Utah and Wyoming, most of the participants were males. These
males were either farmers or non-farmers, but most of them hunted or were associated with
wildlife in some way (McIvor and Conover, 1994). Asking about the occupation of the
respondent would have been a good question to add to my survey. Not all farmers would be
willing to participate in and support conserving wildlife if they experience damage to their
croplands (Kross et al., 2017). Some farmers may not be as affected by local wildlife. Some
farmers can find perching birds and bats beneficial for controlling insects, and some raptors can
help control nuisance vertebrates (Kross et al., 2017). It could depend on the methods used by
farmers; those who use organic methods viewed wildlife more positively than farmers who use
conventional methods (Kross et al., 2017). Non-farmers are likely influenced by the media and
have less information on local species and their importance or impact on their community. They
may think that all species need protection without knowing the benefits and negatives of a
species. Also, which responders participate in hunting, bird watching, or photography could have
been a question to add to the survey. Those who enjoy watching wildlife may be more adamant
about helping all sick, injured, and orphaned animals whereas those who enjoy activities like
hunting may lean more towards letting nature take its course.
Age can also impact these results. Younger participants are more heavily influenced by
the internet and social media, which can be good or bad. Access to the internet and more
information allows younger people to be more socially aware of environmental and conservation
issues and find information on wildlife and organizations that work with wildlife. However, this
could be a negative influence because one video or one article can provide false information or
twist a story. Without further research, people could easily believe and trust these sources. This
goes for younger and older participants. Technology also influences younger participants by
maybe preventing some of them from going outside and interacting with nature. If gaming
consoles, laptops, cellphones, and televisions are the main source of entertainment for
participants, they are less likely to go on hikes, bird watch, hunt, garden, etc. This could skew
results to be more positive or neutral since participants would have noticeably less interaction
with wildlife compared to older participants who did not have the same technology and social
norms. As seen in Table 1, the age spread for this survey was relatively even. There were 14
participants born before the 1990s and 15 participants born after (one responder did not answer).
The environment in which the responders grew up could also have an impact on the
results. Those that live or had grown up in a rural or suburban area would have more interactions
with wildlife. Those that live in or closer to urban areas may not interact with wildlife as often,
which may cause them to believe wildlife is not a problem. They would also have less
information on wildlife, rehabilitation, and diseases. Also, regulations on wildlife vary from state
to state. People in New Jersey may be more accepting of wildlife than people in other states.
They could also encounter different species, which could influence perceived nuisance animals
and knowledge of animals in general. Most of the participants were from New Jersey, but there
were a couple from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware. Luckily, these states are near New
Jersey, so the environment, environmental issues, and species are similar. New Jersey and
Pennsylvania have a relatively large number of farms and people who partake in gardening. Due
to this, I expected a few responders to find wildlife to be a nuisance since wildlife like deer,
rabbits, and birds can destroy plants. Besides one neutral response and one missing response, all
responders disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that all wildlife are nuisances.
However, as seen in Graph 1, seventeen participants did agree with the statement that wildlife
causes problems, but they enjoy seeing them. Sixteen participants disagreed or were neutral with
the statement that wildlife does not cause any problems, and they enjoy seeing them. These
results could be illustrating that people are appreciative of nature and understand the importance
of wildlife in their area.
While 22 participants have encountered injured or orphaned animals, only 13 have
handled wild animals. Although, 60% of participants had little knowledge of rabies, and 30%
had some. Since I expected some responders to have encountered wild animals and possibly
handled them, I wanted to understand these responder’s knowledge of the animals they are
touching, which is not a lot. When asked to choose rabies vector species, seen in Graph 2, all
participants chose raccoons. This shows that responders are aware that raccoons are notorious for
carrying and transmitting rabies. Of the eight species listed in the question, only opossums and
squirrels are considered to not be rabies vectors species. Raccoons, coyotes, foxes, skunks,
groundhogs, and bats are all rabies vector species—they can carry the virus and transmit it to
humans and other animals. Animals like squirrels can become infected by rabies, but they are not
a rabies vector species—they cannot house the virus and transfer it to others. Seventeen
participants chose squirrels as a rabies vector species, and only 14 chose groundhogs. It is
important for people who encounter wildlife often or are handling possible sick and injured
wildlife to understand the severity of rabies as well as the species that carry the virus, especially
since 11 participants are willing to safely secure these wild animals and bring them to a
rehabilitation facility themselves. Rehabilitation centers will keep records of their animals, and
these records can become crucial in understanding species mortality and morbidity and any links
between diseases and common admission causes (Trocini et al. 2008). The animals admitted to
these centers can also be used to understand the local ecosystem's health (Trocini et al. 2008).
Rehabilitation centers would be one of the best places to see if locally a disease is becoming
more prevalent in a certain species or if a specific species is just not thriving well in an area.
While animals, especially juveniles, look cute and cuddly, handling them with bare hands and
holding them close to the body and face can be seriously dangerous and is discouraged by
wildlife rehabilitators. In general, participants of this study seem to have a positive perception of
wildlife and want to help injured, sick, or orphaned wild animals, which also leads to a more
positive opinion of wildlife rehabilitation.
Twenty-one responders strongly agreed with rehabilitating orphaned and injured animals.
Seven agreed, and two were neutral. Wildlife rehabilitation centers often face challenges, such as
limited facilities, funding, trained staff, and release sites (Mullineaux, 2014). If more people
support rehabilitation centers, it could help them obtain more donations and assistance
throughout the community. While participants support these organizations, 17 stated they did not
know of any local rehabilitation centers. According to NJAWR, as of 2020, there are a total of 19
wildlife rehabilitators spread across 11 counties in New Jersey (NJAWR, n.d.). This could be an
issue if responders are willing to personally help and handle injured and orphaned wildlife, but
50% of responders did say they would call Animal Control. If a person does not know their local
wildlife rehabilitator and wants to help an animal, they should call Animal Control. In the case of
Woodlands Wildlife Refuge, Animal Control often picked up animals and brings them to the
refuge to be cared for. If responders do not know of any local organizations, they also most
likely do not know of the resources and information that their local rehabilitation center
provides.
As seen in Graph 3, only ten responders chose "educate the public" as one of the purposes
of wildlife rehabilitation. Wildlife rehabilitators are willing to and want to answer the public's
questions about wildlife, whether that is on the phone or in person (Seimer et al., 1991). These
rehabilitators do not only provide information on caring for animals, but they often provide
information on topics like nuisance and damage control, habitat conservation, history, and even
environmental conservation laws (Seimer et al. 1991). Rehabilitation places also give formal
presentations and distribute written information to the public (Seimer et al. 1991). Woodlands
offers multiple education programs about local wildlife and their habitat, offer tours of the
facility, and other festivities and fundraisers. These programs provide knowledge to the public
and provide publicity for Woodlands, connecting them to more community members. Some
organizations also have education animals, like Woodlands, that are either inhouse or animals
that can be brought to events or schools. These education animals are either not native to New
Jersey, and therefore cannot be released, or have some injury or disability that would not lead to
a successful release. These animals can teach the public about local wildlife as well as the work
done at that rehabilitation center. The purpose of wildlife rehabilitation is to provide care for
sick, injured, or orphaned wild animals, return these wild animals to their natural habitat (if
possible), and educate the public on wildlife.
Conclusion
The results of this survey show that people care more for wild animals today than in the
past. Most responders stated they enjoy seeing wildlife and support the rehabilitation of injured
and orphaned animals. This survey only had 30 responses, most of which were from New Jersey
residents that I know. If this survey was able to reach a larger population of people, the results
may be different. If this survey got to a diverse range of people in New Jersey, I think overall the
results would be similar, but with more responses of negative perceptions of wildlife. If this
survey reached multiple other states, states that were not neighbors of New Jersey, I think the
results could be quite different due to the diverse range of responders. Further research can
include adding a couple more questions to this survey that address the responder's occupation,
wildlife-related hobbies, education, any negative experiences with wildlife, etc. I would also find
ways to get this survey to more people. Instead of sampling posting in on social media, I could
email the survey to people, which may reach more people who do not use Facebook and
Instagram and then ask them to share the survey with people they know. Since the survey is
online, a link can be shared more easily than a paper survey.
This survey has also shown that not all these people who care for wildlife know the risks
of interacting with them or resources they can utilize to help wildlife. Even those who do not
care much for wildlife should still have general knowledge of rabies (and other diseases such as
Lyme’s Disease) and possible resources (Animal Control, rehabilitation centers, Fish and
Wildlife) that they have access to if they so choose. If the public is educated better on their local
wildlife, it would create safer and healthier interactions between wildlife and people in
communities. It may also encourage people to be more active in their environment, whether
through hobbies like hiking or bird watching, donating to local organizations, or volunteering.
The results of this survey were expected. If the survey had not been sent out during the
pandemic or shared another way along with the social media postings, more responses would
have been gathered. More responders would have most likely resulted in a wider range of
answers, changing the results. The 30 responders, while anonymous, were most likely my
relatives, friends, peers. These people live in a similar area and probably have similar
experiences with wildlife and nature. In general, the public has a positive attitude towards
wildlife. While animals may cause issues, people still want to see them in their daily lives.
People are also willing to help wildlife if they are sick, injured, or orphaned. However, not
everyone understands the risks of handling wildlife themselves (i.e. diseases) or knows of all the
possible resources and local organizations they can utilize to help them with wildlife. Even
though many responders did not know of local rehabilitation centers, a majority supported
wildlife rehabilitation and had a positive opinion of the field. Public education and outreach
seem to be an important aspect of creating safer and healthier interactions between people,
wildlife, and communities.
Works Cited
Kross, S.M., Ingram, K.P., Long, R.F., Niles, M.T. (2017). Farmer perceptions and behaviors
related to wildlife and on farm conservation actions. Conservation Letters, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12364
McIvor, D.E. and Conover, M.R. (1994). Perceptions of farmers and non-farmers toward
management of problem wildlife. Wildl. Soc. Bull, 22, 212-219.
Mullineaux, E. (2014). Veterinary treatment and rehabilitation of indigenous wildlife. Journal of
Small Animal Practice, 55(6), 293-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsap.12213
New Jersey Association of Wildlife Rehabilitators (NJAWR). (n.d.). NJ Wildlife Rehabilitators.
https://njawr.com/nj-wildlife-rehabilitators/
Siemer, W.F., Brown, T.L., Martin, P.P., Stumvoll, R.D. (1991). Tapping the potential of the
wildlife rehabilitation community for public education about wildlife damage
management. Proc. East Wildl. Damage Control Conf, 5, 143-147.
Trocini, S., Pacioni, C., Warren, K., Butcher, J., Robertson, I. (2008). Wildlife disease passive
surveillance: the potential role of wildlife rehabilitation centers. Australian Wildlife
Rehabilitation Conference.
http://www.awrc.org.au/uploads/5/8/6/6/5866843/trocini_surveillance.pdf
Woodlands Wildlife Refuge (n.d.). About Us. https://woodlandswildlife.org/about/
